Wednesday, August 11, 2004

blog spat, cont...

From the comment thread:

Kathy said...
I can understand your ban on discussing abortion in your writing classes, but I find it bizarre that you won't discuss it at all.I pointed out her inconsistency in supporting abortion when she literally weeps over tv programs that involve children being harmed in any way.Willingness to discuss abortion and deleting a personal attack in one's own journal strike me as two very different things. So, because Doggy (as do most people that are in support of a woman's right to choose, by the way) are horrified by the thought of someone inflicting pain upon a child -- any child. Your correlation is completely out in the ozone. Your attack was vicious and mean-spirited.
2:22 PMKathy said...
I realize my comment makes little to no sense. It's a heck of an argument for getting a good night's sleep, I guess.
2:52 PMdogfaceboy said...
It might've had an extra period and a subject/verb error, but it still made sense. Stopping a pregnancy has no relation to hurting a living, breathing child. But let's put the government in our pants and keep them away from our gas tanks! Rah, rah, rah!

I said:
One more time, for the record: Doggy can do whatever she likes in her blog, including deleting comments she doesn't like, for whatever reason she wants. It's her space. I have no problem with that. Of course being willing to discuss abortion and deleting personal attacks are two different things. Kathy is the one who strung those two sentences together, which is why they make no sense.

So, if you're going to pull quotes, please put them in context. The first sentence is from up thread, anyone can see it is the opening of a paragraph wherein I agree: Doggy's blog, Doggy's rules. The second sentence Kathy quoted is from my own blog where I talk about this sequence of events. (http://www.farscapeweekly.com/weblog/blogger.html)

Had I been aware of Doggy's unwillingness to discuss abortion, I would never have brought up the issue as an example of the conflicting values she has expressed. (Note: it is only my opinion that she has expressed conflicting values. She herself feels she is entirely consistent.)

Now, my final comment: these two women assert that I am "out in the ozone" because "Stopping a pregnancy has no relation to hurting a living, breathing child".

(I'm making this point here because Doggy has this no-abortion-discussion rule, and I didn't want it to get deleted.) There IS a "relation" because abortions hurt the fetus. Whether or not there is "life", whether or not you believe a "baby" "dies" during an abortion -- there is NO DISPUTE that abortions cause pain, real physical suffering, to the abortee. I do not understand how a woman who falls apart watching made-for-tv crime dramas (about terrible things, which would also make me fall apart, which is one reason why I don't watch them) doesn't care at all about all the pain that is inflicted during abortions.